If a reporter turned up to my door for an interview with an iPhone I'd think that he was not taking me seriously and was mocking me.

Can you imagine the reaction some serious political figure or a scientist or whatever would have when the reporter whips out his phone or whatever and snaps a quickie?

Obviously you haven't seen Ironman 3 yet.

Yes, the quality of so much continues to deteriorate, from mp3s to iphone photos. And even online news sites seem more and more intent on pushing some iphone video instead of actually writing a news article. Personally, I hate having to get my news from vide. Rarely am I looking for an online crappy video--I want an article and a relevant photo. But I guess I'm part of a dying breed...

I also don't know where this stuff about iphones has come from. I know somebody reported on a comment from a laid-off staffer that he expected the Sun Times to go with more reporter-generated stills, and I think that is definitely true. But I don't know why that automatically translates into iphones. More likely, they'll hand over something like a 60D plus superzoom and show them how to work it in scene/green box modes.

They will hardly waste time and money handing reporters DSLR cameras and hoping for the best. The iphone image is immediate and adequate for most delivery systems now available. Fallbacks are stock, file photos, stringers and the general public -- all at least as good as a reporter with a smart phone camera.

As for news papers circling the drain, I think they have only their policies, political preferences and reporters to blame, last time I bought a paper was the day before a reporter called a friend to ask about an issue involving some of her bosses wildfowl, she, not knowing anything about said event gave the no comment response so the journalist made a story up and labeled it a quote, my friend nearly lost her job over this! Even after being notified of this situation there was no appolgy or retraction of this report! I am certain that this paper is not alone, especially after recent revelations regarding press antics.We don't need reporting like this, and the sooner papers willing to do this finish gurgling and die the better.Graham.

I can't be sure what you're saying given the run-on sentences, lack of punctuation, capitalization, etc. It appears however, you claim a newspaper reporter called your friend, asked her a question and she refused to answer. Then, you appear to say, the reporter made up a response from whole cloth and printed it as a direct quote by your friend.

If that is what you are saying, I find it lacking credibility. I have to presume your friend told you this is what happened -- that you were not privy to the actual encounter between your friend and the reporter.

My experience suggests it is far more likely your friend said pretty much what the reporter claimed, and that when it became a problem for your friend, she wanted to deny she said anything -- to save her job?

Professional journalists are thoroughly trained in quoting sources and the appropriate ethics involved. If they violate the ethics, they do not simply risk losing their job -- they risk losing their whole career. One mistake like that and they find themselves on the lowest rung of the food service employment ladder. (No disrespect intended to the fine people working in food service.)

So, if you're going to pit your hearsay against a professional reporter, the reporter wins in my court of judgement.

The ever increasing amount of video means I often find I can't skim read the news sites during my lunch break at work - as I can't play video, and frankly don't want to. My other fear is that those one off iconic photos that endure for decades will no longer be captured. That more than anything else will be the biggest loss by this.

My assumption is that generally news consumption moves from old-fashioned paper to internet access, which is accompanied by a move to replace stills, which would fit print media by videos, which are supposed to be good enough for the internet. Surprisingly the movie quality on news websites is usually astonishingly bad. My expectation is that the measurement for success at news sites is nowadays how long a consumer actually stays on the site, instead of the quality of reporting and associated images. If this is indeed the case, then it should be rather clear, why excellently written short articles plus professional photos telling/supporting the story are a thing of the past, because these would allow the consumer to leave the internet site rather quickly. Add to this the difference in production costs and you've got a rather depressing picture of where we are heading in this area.

What has been mentioned in this thread remarkably often is the imposition of a marked political bias in news media, which pretty much alienates me to a lot of information spread by corporations selling news or even worse by government-owned media. The more we know, the more critical we must become towards what is presented as news, which in my humble opinion is at least in part a reason, why this kind of business is on its way to extinction.

As for news papers circling the drain, I think they have only their policies, political preferences and reporters to blame, last time I bought a paper was the day before a reporter called a friend to ask about an issue involving some of her bosses wildfowl, she, not knowing anything about said event gave the no comment response so the journalist made a story up and labeled it a quote, my friend nearly lost her job over this! Even after being notified of this situation there was no appolgy or retraction of this report! I am certain that this paper is not alone, especially after recent revelations regarding press antics.We don't need reporting like this, and the sooner papers willing to do this finish gurgling and die the better.Graham.

I can't be sure what you're saying given the run-on sentences, lack of punctuation, capitalization, etc. It appears however, you claim a newspaper reporter called your friend, asked her a question and she refused to answer. Then, you appear to say, the reporter made up a response from whole cloth and printed it as a direct quote by your friend.

If that is what you are saying, I find it lacking credibility. I have to presume your friend told you this is what happened -- that you were not privy to the actual encounter between your friend and the reporter.

My experience suggests it is far more likely your friend said pretty much what the reporter claimed, and that when it became a problem for your friend, she wanted to deny she said anything -- to save her job?

Professional journalists are thoroughly trained in quoting sources and the appropriate ethics involved. If they violate the ethics, they do not simply risk losing their job -- they risk losing their whole career. One mistake like that and they find themselves on the lowest rung of the food service employment ladder. (No disrespect intended to the fine people working in food service.)

So, if you're going to pit your hearsay against a professional reporter, the reporter wins in my court of judgement.

Hi distant star, I understand your scepticism due to the sketchy nature of the info provided, there are reasons for that.

First thing, my friend works for famous person, a person who insists on privacy. She has a non disclosure clause. She also spends a good deal of her time fending off people who are trying to trick their way to see this person with claims that they have an appointment etc.

Second thing, there was a witness to what she said in the office.

Third thing, I was the person that witnessed the emotions at the instant she saw the report, you just can not fake what I saw.

Fourth thing, due to the private nature of her employer she was unable to file formal complaints against the reporter as this too could have cost her job.

Last thing, it is a local rag and our locality is rife with people all belonging to the dodgy handshake brigade so perusing the matter would have been doomed from the outset.

Personally, I hate having to get my news from vide. Rarely am I looking for an online crappy video--I want an article and a relevant photo. But I guess I'm part of a dying breed...

If it's a dying breed then I'm dying with you. On any news site, I look for the little video camera icon and AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE. Same goes for online how-to's. I can get far more useful info in 45 seconds of reading than I can get from several minutes of rambling, stammering shaky video from an amateur videographer who happens to know how to replace the string in a Troy-Bilt weed eater.

One thing I will concede, though, (based only on my personal observation) is that there seem to be a lot more writers/reporters who are at least creditable photographers than there are photographers who are good writers. Very, VERY few writers are good creative photographers but even that small number seems to exceed by quite a bit the number of photographers who "switch hit." In the contracting market that is print journalism, it is inevitable that newspapers will attempt, no matter how ill-advisedly, to divest of specialists, and photographers, from those just coming into college age to older photographers considering future re-training, need to bear this market force in mind.

If a reporter turned up to my door for an interview with an iPhone I'd think that he was not taking me seriously and was mocking me.

Can you imagine the reaction some serious political figure or a scientist or whatever would have when the reporter whips out his phone or whatever and snaps a quickie?

Obviously you haven't seen Ironman 3 yet.

Yes, the quality of so much continues to deteriorate, from mp3s to iphone photos. And even online news sites seem more and more intent on pushing some iphone video instead of actually writing a news article. Personally, I hate having to get my news from vide. Rarely am I looking for an online crappy video--I want an article and a relevant photo. But I guess I'm part of a dying breed...

OK no spoilers please I haven't seen it yet!

But seriously, I still want to "read" news and not watch it. Sometimes it's not practicle to watch a video - public transport (without headphones), libraries, offices etc. if I see news online and it's video I usually avoid it. Mostly because it's always some kind of rubbish news like a dancing dog or something. Sure I guess video is best for that kinda thing!

One thing I will concede, though, (based only on my personal observation) is that there seem to be a lot more writers/reporters who are at least creditable photographers than there are photographers who are good writers. Very, VERY few writers are good creative photographers but even that small number seems to exceed by quite a bit the number of photographers who "switch hit."

For what it's worth, my experience confirms your observation. When I was in that business I was always a solid functional photographer -- you won't get anything fancy or creative or dramatic. I could get a decent picture to go with the story. I was outstanding on the writing side.

On the other hand, I never saw a photographer who could write anything outside of a good expense report. And that's taking nothing away from the photographers -- they do amazing work and I'd love to be able to do what they do. I think they are universally undervalued and unappreciated. I guess that's why it's not surprising to see them losing jobs nowadays.

On the other hand, I never saw a photographer who could write anything outside of a good expense report.

I would be pleased to share with you the 70-odd columns I wrote over four or five years while a staff photographer at a newspaper in the 90's to see if I can perhaps qualify as your first "photographer who could write anything outside of a good expense report."

But overall, it was always a source of embarrassment for me that my fellow photographers seemed barely able to provide caption material for their images that didn't deserve laughter or derision due to atrocious spelling or diction, or which was suspect in its accuracy. If there were anywhere near as many photographers who could write as there are writers who can (just barely) photograph, maybe the layoffs we're seeing now would not be so one-sided.

I've found the following regarding 'news turns video' (from written article with a photo or few):1) the quality of many news videos is often poor (quality of sound, shake, background distraction, etc).2) it takes me MUCH longer to scan and/or receive information.

So when there are video links in news items (particularly if they are the main / only source of information in that article) - I will avoid it.

For years I haven't looked at news on TV (since the late 80's regularly - and since the early 90's I haven't used TV for news pretty much at all).Both at work (in my breaks) - and at home - I want to choose what to read, by clicking on news headlines, and read the top paragraph - that will determine whether I need or want to read more. Only for world breaking news (eg huge natural calamity, or outbreak of war, or a truly good news story) - might I tune into TV, or view news videos online. That's only about once every few months (at most!)

I will continue to enjoy photography as a hobby - and appreciate seeing others' quality photography in various media (online, magazines, newspapers, etc). Even though video is taking over some of the traditionally 'written and photographed' articles - there will always be a place for it. And I expect quality publications will still reserve a space for photos and written articles. Who knows, there might even be a return to that some day!

Regards

Paul

Logged

I appreciate using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

My assumption is that generally news consumption moves from old-fashioned paper to internet access, which is accompanied by a move to replace stills, which would fit print media by videos, which are supposed to be good enough for the internet.

My expectation is that the measurement for success at news sites is nowadays how long a consumer actually stays on the site, instead of the quality of reporting and associated images.

No, the measurement for success is profit.

One possible way to make money is to imitate TV, with articles being shot in video and accompanied by ads breaks. For this to work, video would have to be good enough for people to watch till the ad break, stay for the ad, then come for more. That would require, of course, people who can shoot good video.

What has been mentioned in this thread remarkably often is the imposition of a marked political bias in news media, which pretty much alienates me to a lot of information spread by corporations selling news or even worse by government-owned media. The more we know, the more critical we must become towards what is presented as news, which in my humble opinion is at least in part a reason, why this kind of business is on its way to extinction.

I think news can't go extinct. People in general aren't willing to go back to the middle ages, as in settling for news travelling by word of mouth.

A lot of newspapers will go bankrupt, and a few will step up, provide higher quality material (analysis, criticism, balanced view, etc), and make the money.

I also don't know where this stuff about iphones has come from. I know somebody reported on a comment from a laid-off staffer that he expected the Sun Times to go with more reporter-generated stills, and I think that is definitely true. But I don't know why that automatically translates into iphones. More likely, they'll hand over something like a 60D plus superzoom and show them how to work it in scene/green box modes.

My expectation is that the measurement for success at news sites is nowadays how long a consumer actually stays on the site, instead of the quality of reporting and associated images.

No, the measurement for success is profit.

One possible way to make money is to imitate TV, with articles being shot in video and accompanied by ads breaks. For this to work, video would have to be good enough for people to watch till the ad break, stay for the ad, then come for more. That would require, of course, people who can shoot good video.

Actually Ellen is correct, but only because you are also correct. The longer a person stays on a page, the more ads rotate thru, thus profit is increased by time spent on a page. And unlike TV, the ads don't have to wait for a break--they are in the header and side margins. But as others have pointed out videos take longer to consume than an article, thus more video=longer page view=more ads=more profit=more sucky user experience.

My expectation is that the measurement for success at news sites is nowadays how long a consumer actually stays on the site, instead of the quality of reporting and associated images.

No, the measurement for success is profit.

One possible way to make money is to imitate TV, with articles being shot in video and accompanied by ads breaks. For this to work, video would have to be good enough for people to watch till the ad break, stay for the ad, then come for more. That would require, of course, people who can shoot good video.

Actually Ellen is correct, but only because you are also correct. The longer a person stays on a page, the more ads rotate thru, thus profit is increased by time spent on a page. And unlike TV, the ads don't have to wait for a break--they are in the header and side margins. But as others have pointed out videos take longer to consume than an article, thus more video=longer page view=more ads=more profit=more sucky user experience.

Question is whether the person is looking at the ads in the header & side margins. As the person is looking at the video segment - remember the gorilla experiment? - I wouldn't bet any money on him actually noticing the ads outside of the video.